Upon receiving this new information we immediately conducted an internal investigation and found a PDF attachment to an email sent by Trent to Slipstream team doctor, Dr. Prentice Steffen, copying Jonathan Vaughters in June 2009.
The PDF attachment was a copy of Trent's UCI quarterly health check blood test conducted in June 2009 and it contained the name of Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral in the letterhead of the results. Neither Dr. Steffen nor Jonathan Vaughters noticed del Moral's name on the letterhead in June 2009 and, at the time, neither Dr. Steffen nor Vaughters were aware that Trent had visited del Moral.
In fact, Slipstream was not made aware of any interaction with del Moral until Trent disclosed the information on January 6, 2011. The test results were forwarded to the UCI, as is protocol with quarterly health checks.
That section of today's Garmin press release is relevant.
I should probably say the following is MY OWN OPINION. I have no idea if it also represents Canadian contract law or whatever jurisdiction under which the Garmin business operates.
Lowe notifying Vaughters or Vaughters' staff in June 2009, via an email-attached pdf, with his reference to the del Moral visit in that pdf's LETTERHEAD no less, is enough to put Vaughters ON CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AT THAT TIME of Lowe's del Moral visit.
Vaughters and Garmin were on notice as of the moment that email attachment hit Vaughter's inbox. At law, this concept is referred to as being placed under "constructive knowledge". That means whether you know it or not, you should know it and other people can rely on the assumption that you do know it.
Constructive knowledge has the effect that Vaughters knew of the del Moral visit and that fact can be relied upon by Lowe. And obviously, by extension, White. Both can assume they've done nothing their bosses don't sanction and endorse. Vaughters continued to allow both Lowe and White to operate - for over a season and a half - under that assumption.
If Vaughters or Vaughters' staff didn't read his emails, well that wasn't Lowe's problem. Nor was it White's problem. Effective notice had been made at that time.
By virtue of the fact that Vaughters retained both Lowe and White from that moment on, and allowed both employees to represent him in ongoing business, Vaughters conduct is such that he accepts the situation and gave it the OK. Both Lowe and White have a legal right to expect they have done nothing that Vaughters disagrees with.
As for any suggestion Lowe and his counsel demanded money to stay quiet about it, well i can only speak for myself and say that **** just ain't on and i don't blame Vaughters & Co for feeling quite miffed by that. Poor form on Lowe's part (or his advisor). Naive and stupid.
But that's just my opinion. If Garmin's contract jurisdiction is anything similar to Australian contract law, i think Vaughters might have some problems if either Lowe or White take it up.
Either way, saying "I don't read my emails and i don't take my riders' correspondence to me seriously" is no defence to the charge that you knew about something that was in those emails at the time they are sent.